mcp_opendaw_create_colotomic

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it creates notes and returns notes created, gong layer breakdown, and cycle info, and lists parameters like unit_index, track_index, and start_beat, implying it places notes in a DAW. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether it overwrites existing notes, requires a pre-existing track, or modifies existing regions—important for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-organized, front-loading the purpose, then providing musical context, differentiation, structure/tempo lists, args, and returns. Some educational content (e.g., the role of melodic instruments) could be trimmed without loss, but the length is largely justified given the complexity of the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 10 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains the musical concept, all parameter options, structure specifics, and return value. It lacks explicit info on how output relates to the output schema and some behavioral edge cases, but it is sufficiently rich for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does with an 'Args' section that explains all 10 parameters, including allowed structures, tempo densities, ranges for cycles/octave, and the meaning of unit_index/track_index. It omits some specifics (e.g., root note format beyond examples, whether values are case-sensitive), but overall it adds significantly beyond the raw property names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a colotomic structure — interlocking gong layers marking cyclic time.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by contrasting with polyrhythm and additive rhythm, making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides strong contextual guidance by explaining when colotomic structure is appropriate ('foundation of Indonesian gamelan, Javanese klenengan, and Balinese ritual music') and explicitly distinguishes it from polyrhythm and additive rhythm. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X', so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.